IanMoran wrote:I really haven't read this thread, and I'm guessing this has already been discussed (especially with the Hammer being so active)

But with the talk of % of blames... In PA, the parents can't recover if a court finds that its 51% or more to blame, but can recover if a court finds the parents 50% or less to blame.

Regardless of what "%" you place the blame, I think its "reasonable" to find that the Zoo had some blame (based on previous knowledge that parents often lifted their kids up at that location, and that their exhibit provided more risk than most similar exhibits), that this would reach the trial stage for a jury to determine exactly what % each party has of the blame.

I'd imagine the Zoo would be pretty desperate to settle before the publicity of an actual trial...

I cannot see any way that the zoo could dispose of the case through a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment for the reasons you stated. A reasonable person could (but may not) conclude the zoo acted unreasonably by not closing off the entire exhibit. My and Troy's discussion shows where reasonable minds may differ.